The Dark Knight Why getting tone and feel right is more important than detail accuracy...

[regwec]

And so does perennial chalk white skin, if you ask me.

That's absurd. If somebody applies makeup to themselves in a careless fashion, then it is reasonable to state that they are careless of their appearance. If someone takes pride in an unusual feature that is an irreversable fact, then the opposite may be true.

 

[ultimatefan]

That's absurd. If somebody applies makeup to themselves in a careless fashion, then it is reasonable to state that they are careless of their appearance. If someone takes pride in an unusual feature that is an irreversable fact, then the opposite may be true.

And the same can be said if someone does that regarding to scars. Both are deformities, it´s how Joker deals with them that makes him vain and proud.

 

[dark_b]

That's absurd. If somebody applies makeup to themselves in a careless fashion, then it is reasonable to state that they are careless of their appearance. If someone takes pride in an unusual feature that is an irreversable fact, then the opposite may be true.

maybe he is so insane that hes hands were shaking when he was putting the lipstick

could be t:

 

[Sun_Down]

That's absurd. If somebody applies makeup to themselves in a careless fashion, then it is reasonable to state that they are careless of their appearance. If someone takes pride in an unusual feature that is an irreversable fact, then the opposite may be true.

Why are people referring to it as make-up?

 

[Doc Samson]

Once again, I don't think his appearance will be one way throughout the whole movie. In keeping with the theme of escalation, and the fact that we know he's the Joker from the very beginning, I think it's plausible that his initial appearance could be much more in line with the comic book, at least in terms of no smearing of the lips. Once he becomes scarred, then I think he'll start progressing towards this more "demented" look.

 

[360sculptguy]

While tone and feel have their place, they do not or will not justify "the joke".

I work in the fine arts field and am a student of the arts. During my studies, I have viewed my fair share of projects executed by people who lack determination, skill, talent, and focus. Often, when questioned about it, they believe that an explanation will some-how redeem their work and make it better in the process. However, no matter how extraneous or emotional the description, it does not detract from the fact that crappy art is crappy art.

Thus, from my experience, I doubt that any form of explanation, be it dramatic or spectacle, will ever make this seem reasonable.

I find this to be a fairly unsettling view. If you want to get verbal with someone about their work I would question your purpose if you feel explanation to be extraneous. Art affects each viewer differently and its up to the viewer to be open to understanding work outside of their own tastes. The context of the time, the place, the artist's biography, the artist's body of work, the history of the medium, etc., etc. all inform a work of art. You can argue like or dislike to be an irrevocable first impression, but a student of art should understand that is only where an artwork begins. Otherwise all the art history books and critical essays you may have studied would have nothing but a timeline of pictures, void of any text.

Duchamp put a urinal on exhibition in 1917 and it is widely respected as one of, if not the most, influential work of modern art. That work came from a mind that understood ideas have equality with, and are capable of being superior to, skill of hand and eye.

Again, not to say this is entirely in defense of this Joker, just that I find such a base view of fine arts to be rather unseasoned.

 

[TheBat812]

While tone and feel have their place, they do not or will not justify "the joke".

I work in the fine arts field and am a student of the arts. During my studies, I have viewed my fair share of projects executed by people who lack determination, skill, talent, and focus. Often, when questioned about it, they believe that an explanation will some-how redeem their work and make it better in the process. However, no matter how extraneous or emotional the description, it does not detract from the fact that crappy art is crappy art.

Thus, from my experience, I doubt that any form of explanation, be it dramatic or spectacle, will ever make this seem reasonable.

Maybe you feel yourself superior to others, but art is one of the few things where there is no "good" or "bad" art. You can have technically good art, but overall it comes to perception. There is no right or wrong. If there were, then art would cease to be as important to us or as interesting.

 

[The Democrat]

You know at first glance I was horrified at the picture of Ledger's Joker. It seemed to radical of a departure for me. I don't particularly like the scars but I am willing to see how it plays out. As with all things that seem controversial at first when I work it out later when my mind has cleared it seems alright. The whole decision about Ledger in the first place, last nights Iraq supplemental capitulation, breaking up with my girlfriend and even the new look for Joker. All things seemed like a bad idea until you realize that Ledger is a great actor, Republicans will block any vote that doesn't give them what they want, my girlfriend keyed my car because I didn't call her one night is bat**** crazy and all the Joker factors are still there. All is okay in the world.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Once again, I don't think his appearance will be one way throughout the whole movie. In keeping with the theme of escalation, and the fact that we know he's the Joker from the very beginning, I think it's plausible that his initial appearance could be much more in line with the comic book, at least in terms of no smearing of the lips. Once he becomes scarred, then I think he'll start progressing towards this more "demented" look.

I agree.

 

[DangerousInc.]

I think accurate is most important which is in turn gets the tone and feel right which is actually the same thing!!

 

[deathfromabove]

While tone and feel have their place, they do not or will not justify "the joke".

I work in the fine arts field and am a student of the arts. During my studies, I have viewed my fair share of projects executed by people who lack determination, skill, talent, and focus. Often, when questioned about it, they believe that an explanation will some-how redeem their work and make it better in the process. However, no matter how extraneous or emotional the description, it does not detract from the fact that crappy art is crappy art.

Thus, from my experience, I doubt that any form of explanation, be it dramatic or spectacle, will ever make this seem reasonable.

i studied at the school of one of the largest and most important art schools in the world, i have worked as an visual artist in many forms and i have owned and run my own art gallery for the past 3 years. i have probably seen more art in the past decade than you have seen thus far in your life. judging art without context is nearly impossible and certainly irrational and reactionary. i would say that you have alot to learn about judging works on artistic merit and i agree with 360 when he says your view of art sounds rather unseasoned. you think nolan (and company ) honestly lack determination, skill, talent, and focus? you might not like the creative decision they have made but you are second guessing the filmakers based on one image without any context whatsoever. that does not sound like a well informed or rational conclusion. it sounds like a presumptious and immature one.

again hate the picture as much as you feel is needed. if you dont like it you are of course entitled to your opinion. i realize most (like regwec) have said they are only reacting to this image and i absolutely respect that but to write off the entire movie before it is even completed just because you dont like one teaser shot is not sound artistic judgement.

No, thats blind obedience. I envy you and your lack of scruples.

are you saying you are not going to see this film based on this image? that was my whole point. that despite any misgivings doubters may have most batman fans will still see the movie.
and it has nothing to do with scruples or blind obedience. its called making an informed decision based on all available evidence. of which we have very little right now.

 

[JTIZZLEVILLE]

I think accurate is most important which is in turn gets the tone and feel right which is actually the same thing!!

The batmobile and suit in Begins were not accurate to the comics. Are you going to tell me that the tone wasn't right in Begins? Some how, Batman wearing tights and black underwear on the outside of his pants would have ruined the dark tone of the film, don't you think?

 

[ThatDamnNinja]

Maybe someone has already said this but...

I think I need to point out that it's kind of ridiculous to argue if this interpretation of the Joker "matches the tone of the comics," particularly with the blanket way we refer to "the comics."

Countless writer's and artists have brought their own interpretation of the Joker to the table, and the overall view of the Joker that people have is an amalgam of those interpretations.

Is he SUPPOSED to be frightening, or is he supposed to be seemingly harmless until he kills a baby? That varies from comic to comic.

For me personally, the definitive Joker, in terms both of personality and appearance, is found in Alan Moore's The Killing Joke. Is this Joker going to be that? No, obviously not. However, if the preformance is good, and it captures the intangible essence of the Joker that I can't really describe, but I know when I see, I have no problem, and so far, so good.

Which brings me to another point: for anyone else, did the little asides written by the Joker on the webpage, i.e. "Trying to cheat the cheater. You make me smile" and the bit about peeling away a man's face one piece at a time, totally scream Arkham Asylum?

 

[The Kid]

The batmobile and suit in Begins were not accurate to the comics. Are you going to tell me that the tone wasn't right in Begins? Some how, Batman wearing tights and black underwear on the outside of his pants would have ruined the dark tone of the film, don't you think?

I'll take the comic costume over "can you drive stick" and all the other gags in begins any day personally...

that **** just wasn't batman. Hopefully goyer's absence helps...

 

[CConn]

And the same can be said if someone does that regarding to scars. Both are deformities, it´s how Joker deals with them that makes him vain and proud.

Hannibal Lecter was creepy and psychotic. He's perfect for the Joker!!!

Come on uf, you're supposed to be smarter than this. Or, at least, more respectful of other people's opinions.

 

[ultimatefan]

Hannibal Lecter was creepy and psychotic. He's perfect for the Joker!!!

Come on uf, you're supposed to be smarter than this. Or, at least, more respectful of other people's opinions.

And what in this is disrespecting other opinions? I don´t have to agree with anybody else´s opinion or how they approach these characters, that´s the nature of debate. Disrespect is personal attack or calling names and I haven´t done either.

And what about it makes me "dumb"? Perennial chalk white skin - as in albino, for instance - is considered an aesthetic deformity. It´s a fact. Scars are considered an aesthetic deformity. It´s a fact. The notion that Joker is supposed to embrace his other deformities also suggest he would embrace scars.

 

[ultimatefan]

BTW, one thing that people are not saying is, they seem so worried with the "gruesome" effect of the scars, but don´t forget this first pic was a bigass close-up. In medium or above shoulder frames the scars will probably look more discrete than in that pic, especially when he´s smiling.

 

[Hunter Rider]

BTW, one thing that people are not saying is, they seem so worried with the "gruesome" effect of the scars, but don´t forget this first pic was a bigass close-up. In medium or above shoulder frames the scars will probably look more discrete than in that pic, especially when he´s smiling.

I said this earlier to Keyser

I look at this whole reveal as running the length of the pitch with the ball and then dropping it 2 yards from the endzone....By that i don't mean that ppl shouldn't like the image but if they'd revealed an image of him smiling and where you could also see his green hair i believe a lot of the complaints would be more muted as the execution of the reveal was classic Joker

 

[ultimatefan]

I said this earlier to Keyser

I look at this whole reveal as running the length of the pitch with the ball and then dropping it 2 yards from the endzone....By that i don't mean that ppl shouldn't like the image but if they'd revealed an image of him smiling and where you could also see his green hair i believe a lot of the complaints would be more muted as the execution of the reveal was classic Joker

Sorry, I missed that.

And it´d have a lot of people complaining that Nolan just imitated Burton, just like they did with Bryan Singer and Superman Returns, or every time Begins had a shot that paid tribute to Batman 89.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Sorry, I missed that.

And it´d have a lot of people complaining that Nolan just imitated Burton, just like they did with Bryan Singer and Superman Returns, or every time Begins had a shot that paid tribute to Batman 89.

You think ppl would have reacted that way if we could see the green hair and a smile ? perhaps a full body shot with the purple suit ? i think that would have shown off the other elements of The Joker's look that would have calmed some,as it is we can only see the face and it's right in our faces lol

 

[Crook]

Sorry, I missed that.

And it´d have a lot of people complaining that Nolan just imitated Burton, just like they did with Bryan Singer and Superman Returns, or every time Begins had a shot that paid tribute to Batman 89.

What the hell?

A Joker with green hair and smiling goes way beyond Burton's take. What's with all these Nostradamus-like predictions that if we got a traditional look we'd be angry?

That's just as stupid as assuming SW fanboys would be pissed if there wasn't a new Darth Vader design in EP III.

 

[ultimatefan]

What the hell?

A Joker with green hair and smiling goes way beyond Burton's take. What's with all these Nostradamus-like predictions that if we got a traditional look we'd be angry?

That's just as stupid as assuming SW fanboys would be pissed if there wasn't a new Darth Vader design in EP III.

The analogy doesn´t work because that was the origin of the same Darth Vader from the original trilogy continuity, which is not the case here.

Quite a few fanboys called "rip-off" when some of the initial images of Begins evoked 89, such as Batman falling with open cape from the stairs in Arkham - which was a little similar to the museum arrival in 89 - , as well as other moments in Begins that evoke that movie.

One of the biggest criticisms of fanboys against Bryan Singer´s Superman Returns was that it evoked too many visuals and quotes from Donner´s STM.

 

[ultimatefan]

You think ppl would have reacted that way if we could see the green hair and a smile ? perhaps a full body shot with the purple suit ? i think that would have shown off the other elements of The Joker's look that would have calmed some,as it is we can only see the face and it's right in our faces lol

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your post. Maybe they were going for the opposite effect to get all that would annoy some fans right off the bat and also emphasize the new aspect of the take and then slowly win them over between here and the time the movie opens.

 

[Crook]

Quite a few fanboys called "rip-off" when some of the initial images of Begins evoked 89, such as Batman falling with open cape from the stairs in Arkham - which was a little similar to the museum arrival in 89 - , as well as other moments in Begins that evoke that movie.

'Few' is a pretty big keyword there. Pretty much every single material we got WAS new and different (asides from the suit), and the majority reaction proved accordingly.

One of the biggest criticisms of fanboys against Bryan Singer´s Superman Returns was that it evoked too many visuals and quotes from Donner´s STM.

What visuals are you talking about (besides the obvious in the FOS)?

Plot points, dialog, and certain character traits are the main complaints I noticed. And even that is justified, because when you put all of that together, you DO get a tiring retread of the past.

Adhering to the traditional look that has virtually been left unchanged for the past 60+ years? That's a bit different I'd say.

 

[ultimatefan]

'Few' is a pretty big keyword there. Pretty much every single material we got WAS new and different (asides from the suit), and the majority reaction proved accordingly.


What visuals are you talking about (besides the obvious in the FOS)?

Plot points, dialog, and certain character traits are the main complaints I noticed. And even that is justified, because when you put all of that together, you DO get a tiring retread of the past.

Adhering to the traditional look that has virtually been left unchanged for the past 60+ years? That's a bit different I'd say.

Not all the material that was new and different was all that approved, there were a lot of harsh reactions against the Tumbler, for instance.

The flying scene between Supes and Lois, for instance, and many small moments like Lois passing out after being rescued by Supes, throwing the baseball like the football he kicked in STM, etc.

And if the fillmmakers just go repeating things that Burton did with Joker cuz it´s "traditional" the same could happen to TDK.

Since when adhering to a 60 year old tradition is different? Now that´s the second weirdest comment I read here - the "Joker doesn´t look creepy and psychotic" one still takes the cake.